Cow unites Buddhists and Hindus for its protection
Posted on June 16th, 2017
Dr. Prasanna Cooray Courtesy: The Island
June 15, 2017, 9:49 pm
On the last poson full moon poya day (8 June), Buddhist and Hindu activists from across the country gathered at the Sri Sambuddhathwa Jayanthi Centre at Thummulla Junction, Colombo 5 to pass a resolution to protect cow in Sri Lanka. They expect this to be presented to the parliament through Mano Ganesan, minister of national co-existence dialogue and official languages, who was the chief guest of the event.
National list MP Ven. Athureliye Rathana Thero addressing the gathering acknowledged this as a victory for the people dedicated to this cause in this country for many years. He said, harming life is anyway a sinful act according to Buddhism and protecting cow and banning its slaughter is important for many reasons in addition to the religious sentiments. These include its role as a nutrition provider through its milk and many other edibles made from milk and its role in agriculture. If the country takes a decisive step towards organic farming then there will be a dearth of our “cattle resource” remarked the Ven. Thero.
This development in Sri Lanka comes close on the heels of a landmark law passed in the Indian parliament banning sale of cows for slaughter. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India on 23 May 2017 issued the extraordinary gazette notification called the “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017” that banned the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter through animal markets in that country.
In Sri Lanka too a bill to prevent cruelty to animals had been drafted and its passage is expected through parliament. Responding to a query on its delay, Rathana Thero replied that certain elements in the livestock business are thwarting this move.
His Holiness Bhaktivinod Swami Maharaj of the International Society Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) from Coimbatore India spoke of the spiritual aspects of “ahimsa”. Giving an explicit overview of how Indian culture is interwoven around cow, he said veneration of cow comes from the ancient Vedic belief that the sacred cow Kamadhenu was the abode of all 33 crore (10 million) demigods.
He also reminded of Muslim Mogul emperors of India who banned cow slaughter. Since the time of Humayun, who first introduced ban on cattle slaughter in India, Akbar and Jahangir, both in his lineage followed suit. Last of the Mogul emperors Bahadur Shah Zafar, who ruled Delhi during British Raj’s occupancy, imposed capital punishment for cattle slaughter.
-YPR-2.jpg)
Swamiji also recalled the role played by the first British Governor of Bengal, Robert Clive in promoting cattle slaughter and thereby breaking the backbone of agriculture in India. Clive on entering India was amazed to see the success of the agricultural system there, and realized it revolved around the “holy cow”, not just religiously, but socially as well. Cow was an integral part of a Hindu family as was any other human member in the family. Then he targeted the cow. And thus he opened the first slaughterhouse of cows in Kolkata in 1760. It had a capacity to kill 30,000 cows per day.
Within a century India had very little cattle left to sustain its agricultural needs. Then Britain as an alternative started offering artificial manure, started importing it from England. Soon Indian agriculture became dependent on West invented artificial products, and home grown natural practices started to disintegrate.
One can draw a close parallel to what happened in Sri Lanka in the immediate aftermath of full British occupation in 1815. The British rulers, after the first rebellion in Uva Wellassa in 1818, realized that the fertility and self-sufficiency of that region was the greatest threat to its authority, and went on a destruction spree of the farmland and irrigation sources in order to break the backbone of the island nation’s agricultural livelihood.
Minister Mano Ganesan acknowledging the timely need of the resolution to protect cow, said lately Sri Lanka has come to be engulfed by violence. He said all forms of slaughter, including man slaughter needs to be halted in the country.
New restrictions on cattle slaughter in India
The Centre has banned the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets across the country.
Under a notification, titled the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, those who wish to sell cattle — bulls, cows, buffaloes, steers, heifers and camels — may do so only after they formally state that the animals have not been “brought to the market for sale for slaughter”.
The new rules aim at regulating such markets and also the sale of bovines said Environment Minister Harsh Vardhan.
“The aim of the rules is to regulate the animal market and sale of cattle in them and ensure welfare of cattle dealt in them.” (The Hindu, 30 May 2017)
……………………………………………….
Health reasons to not eat beef
-YPR-3.jpg)
Compiling up-to-date scientific evidence on the health risks of red meat eating, “Health & Society” has said enough and more why people should not eat beef for their own health. Back to back editions on 20 and 27 January this year were dedicated to this topic.
The NCDs, as of today, are the leading cause of death in the world, and are estimated to be responsible for 63% of the deaths worldwide. Unquestionably, red meat, of which beef is a kind, is one of the most important causative factors of Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs). As such, there are ample reasons why red meat eating needs to be discouraged to ensure better health for people.
WHO’s sickening silence
Thus, we cannot resist raising an eyebrow over World Health Organization’s sickening silence on the issue, especially in the context of prevention and control of NCDs. We believe now the time is ripe for the organization to take a bandwagon role in this regard too, similar to what they previously did with tobacco and alcohol use in the same paradigm. This is exactly what needs to happen if the multibillion dollar meat industry’s greed for money is not to take precedence over the health of the world’s populace.
Compelling evidence against red meat
After a systemic review of scientific studies, an expert panel of the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research concluded in 2007 that “red or processed meats are convincing or probable sources of some cancers.” Their report said that evidence is convincing for a link between red meat, processed meat, and colorectal cancer, and limited but suggestive for links to lung, esophageal, stomach, pancreatic, and endometrial cancers.
Dr. Frank Hu’s Study
In the US, a large study was undertaken by a team led by Dr. Frank Hu, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology and Chair, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health to unravel more on the association between red meat intake and mortality. The study included 37,000 men and 83,000 women. All the participants were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at the start of the study. The study extended for over two decades and gathered information on a variety of health factors, including body weight, cigarette smoking and physical activity level every 2 years in addition to filling up of food frequency questionnaires by the participants every 4 years. The total follow-up period was 2.96 million person-years.
Almost 24,000 participants died during the study. These included approximately 5,900 from cardiovascular disease and 9,500 from various cancers. Those who consumed the highest levels of both unprocessed and processed red meat had the highest risk of all-cause of mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality. After adjusting for other risk factors, the researchers calculated that one additional serving per day of unprocessed red meat over the course of the study raised the risk of total mortality by 13%. An extra serving of processed red meat (such as bacon, hot dogs, sausage and salami) raised the risk by 20%.
The researchers estimated that substituting one serving per day of other foods—like fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy and whole grains—for red meat could lower the risk of mortality by 7% to 19%. If the participants had all consumed fewer than half a serving per day (about 1.5 ounces) of red meat, the scientists calculated, 9.3% of the deaths in men and 7.6% of the deaths in women could have been prevented.
The researchers vehemently concluded that red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of mortality that included cardio vascular disease (CVD) and cancer. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.
Among the probable reasons for cancers associated with red meat consumption include,
* Saturated fat, which has been linked to cancers of the colon and breast as well as to heart disease
* Carcinogens formed when meat is cooked
* Heme iron, the type of iron found in meat, that may produce compounds that can damage cells, leading to cancer.
Further, grilling of red meat is also linked to cancer causation. It is argued that high-temperature cooking of any muscle meat, including red meat, poultry, and fish, can generate compounds in food that may increase cancer risk. These compounds include heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The good news for the meat eaters is that they might improve their health by substituting other healthy protein sources for some of the red meat they eat.
Health reasons to go vegetarian
Prof. Duo Li, Professor of Nutrition, Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Zhejiang University, China has casted the issue in cement. He extrapolated various studies carried out throughout the world in buttressing his argument in favour of vegetarianism in the prevention of NCDs.
Compared with an omnivorous diet, a vegetarian diet includes plenty of fruits and vegetables. In general, vegetarian diets are rich in fiber, magnesium, phytochemicals, antioxidants, vitamins C and E, Fe3+, folic acid and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), but low in cholesterol, total fat and saturated fatty acid (SFA), sodium, Fe2+, zinc, vitamins A, B12 and D, and especially n-3 PUFA.
Prof. Li argues, “Low intake of cholesterol, total fat, SFA and sodium, and high intake of phytochemicals, antioxidants and fiber in vegetarian diet, are associated with health advantages including decreased mortality and morbidity of NCDs”.
Dilemma of Vitamins D and B 12
However, it is unclear whether the vegetarians have adequate levels of vitamin D. Vitamin D is either consumed from the diet or synthesized in humans from cholesterol following adequate exposure to the sunlight. But, Prof. Li believes, “the vegetarians do not necessarily have lower vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D) compared with omnivores”.
Contradicting some studies from Poland and the UK that reported vegetarians and vegans having lower serum/plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, Prof. Li points, “However, the Adventist Health Study-2 from the USA found that serum/plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were not associated with vegetarian status. The possible reasons for the variable results include inadequate exposure to the sunlight, dark skin, potentially adequate intake by individuals who are lacto- or lacto-ovo-vegetarians versus vegans, use of supplements or supplemented foods etc”.
Prof. Li also believes, “The vegetarians have a number of increased risk factors for NCDs such as increased plasma homocysteine, mean platelet volume and platelet aggregability compared with omnivores, which are associated with low intake of vitamin B12 and n-3 PUFA”. He recommends the vegetarians to specifically focus on increasing their intake of vitamin B12 and n-3 PUFA to further reduce already low mortality and morbidity from non-communicable diseases”.
Sarah K Gebauer et al. from the Department of Nutritional Sciences, Pennsylvania State University writing to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition recommend flaxseed (“Hana” in Sinhala and Āḷivitai In Tamil) and flaxseed oil, walnuts (genus Juglans) and walnut oil, and canola oil as good vegetarian sources of n-3 PUFA.
The UK based Vegan Society recommends foods fortified with B12 that include some soy products and breakfast cereals and B12 supplements as sources of B12 for the strict vegetarians. Apart from that milk, eggs, yogurt, cheese, whey powder and yeast extract spreads (marmite) are good sources of B12.
June 16th, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Quite aside from the sinful or medical issues related to slaughter of cattle, there are two other issues:
1. Cattle can produce organic fertilizer to grow food products while providing dairy products and farm labor to directly sustain their existence.
2. On the other hand, cattle generate vast quantities of Methane Gas from their digestive process. Methane is a gas that contributes to global warming.
The quantity of global warming gas so produced is second only to that produced by the use of fossil fuels to power vehicles and fossil-fueled electricity generation power plants.
Thus, even if the world switches to renewable energies for transportation and power production, as long as we keep breeding cattle in increasingly large numbers for meat and dairy food production, global warming will continue at an unsustainable rate.
June 16th, 2017 at 7:50 pm
Complete nonsense!
Mixing up health claims with Indian dogma rubbishes both. Governments and media should only point out health claims and must not in anyway restrict food choices. Even vegan food (GM or not) contains harmful substances.
Sri Lanka and India have completely different legal, religious and social considerations as regards the cow. Cow beef is legal and valid in Sri Lanka. There is no special place for cow in Sri Lanka; it never had.
India is world’s largest beef producers. There is no moral difference between buffalo cow beef and bovine cow beef. Such discriminatory laws protecting one animal type cannot be enacted.
In fact, bovine cow beef production must be enhanced in Sri Lanka. It is up to consumers to choose their food. Nazi and Taliban approaches to food choice restrictions are barbaric and out dated.
I’m concerned by JHU always taking the wrong side in matters of national interest and economy since 2015.
Sri Lanka also had no visible Krishna worship movement. Only Hindus (13%) pay any worship to Krishna and that too is very low scale compared to Kataragama, Kali and Shiva worship among Hindus in the island. This is another disgusting Indianization attempt that must be defeated.
June 16th, 2017 at 7:54 pm
My objection is not to Dr Prasanna Cooray (I have productive communications with him via email) but to the event that took place with the participation of the Indianization movement and anything suggestive of giving any special regard to the cow (or a type of a cow) and restricting cow beef production and consumption. Morality and sin are personal issues and beliefs differ vastly. They cannot be state imposed as Nazi and Taliban tried and failed.
June 17th, 2017 at 12:54 am
BAN killing ALL animals.
No SELECTIVE laws for animals.
BAN killing goats, fish, bulls, cows, pigs, chicken, etc.
RATA-NAYA is always wrong. He LIED and got GLYPHOSATE banned to help ENDIAN cheap fertilizer and DESTROY rice production. He cannot be trusted.
June 17th, 2017 at 5:31 am
Thanks Dilrook.
Ratanaya is just after having his cow urine drink, bottled by RSS and imported from India.
Hari Krisna has a good following among Pettah Merchants who are Indian Colonial Parasites and I am sure J H U get funds from them.
This Holy Cow from the Centre (central government of India) may lead to dividing India on its old lines. The fairer cow shits (North) and darker cow beef (South).
June 17th, 2017 at 8:37 am
Dilrook says:
“Sri Lanka and India have completely different legal, religious and social considerations as regards the cow. Cow beef is legal and valid in Sri Lanka. There is no special place for cow in Sri Lanka; it never had”.
Answer
This is a false statement. In the book ‘ The Legal Heritage of Sri Lanka’ the author Dr. A.R.B. Amerasinghe, says quoting Robert Percival in An Account of the Island of Ceylon: Containing Its History, Geography … Published 1803, as follows:
As regards the consumption of meat, Percival says, “They never eat meat, or anything that has had life” and Tennent says, “The mass of the population were nevertheless vegetarians and so little value did they place on animal food”. (quoted in Amerasinghe “The Legal Heritage of Sri Lanka”, p.132 )
As regards special place for cow in Sri Lanka
Dilrook is wrong here again.
Ibn Batuta, the 14th Century Arab traveller refers to the sight of a co-religionist (a Muslim) in Kurunegala whose limbs had been amputated as punishment on the orders of the King. On inquiry Batuta had been told that the King had spared the man’s life but nevertheless had his limbs amputated because he had unlawfully slaughtered a cow, for the purpose of an animal sacrifice. This was a criminal offence punishable usually by death.
This example illustrates the extent to which the Sinhalese Kings were prepared to act to protect and enforce the legal rights that animals, particularly the cow, enjoyed in the pre – colonial era.
Medirigiriya Pillar inscription
It is apparent from epigraphic evidence that animal food was permitted in devotedly Buddhist institutions,only under certain conditions. According to the Medirigiriya pillar inscription (10th century) dead goats and fowls’ should be given to the hospital attached to the vihara (monastery), which is to say those creatures that had died a natural death, killed by accident etc.
Maghata Rule
The social and legal history of Sri Lanka provides innumerable examples of the Buddhist attitude to animal life. Five of the Kings governed the country under the ‘Maghata’ rule, which banned completely the killing of any animal in the kingdom. The five kings were 1) Amanda Gamini (79 – 80 AD), 2) Voharika Tissa (269 – 291 AD) 3) Silakala (524 – 537 AD) 4) Agga Bodhi IV (658 – 674 AD) 5) Kassapa III (717 – 724 AD). (Vide ‘History of Buddhism in Ceylon‘ by Walpola Rahula, First Edition, p.73) Royal Decrees.
Beef eating
The Portuguese not only destroyed all the Buddhist Temples in their occupied territory but in order to destroy the Buddhist spirit of abstinence forced the Sinhala Buddhists to eat beef ( a cardinal taboo until then ) and drink alcohol. During Robert Knox’s time , Europeans were derogatorily referred to as ‘ Beef -eating slaves’ ( geri mas gulamo).
When the British soldiers during the uprising in Uwa – Wellassa in 1818 came after Weera Keppitipola, the Sinhalese people from mountain tops jeered the English troops by shouting ‘ geri mas kanno ‘ ( beef eaters). In the prevailing Buddhist Social Order at that time the consumption of beef was an unpardonable crime.
June 17th, 2017 at 9:39 am
I used to love veil. I stopped eating it after watching the horrible production process of veil in a BBC2 documentary, a long way back. Today, I avoid partaking meat related food as much as I can.
June 17th, 2017 at 11:13 am
It is high time Sri Lankan businesses started using Soy & other plant based proteins to produce delicious meat style products, as done in the west.
Burghers, sausages, ‘meat pieces’, meat fillets, ‘chicken strips’, and even soy bacon are some of the veggie Protein products.
An adult needs about 50 grams of Protein per day.
Organic Soy especially can be grown under Co-ops schemes, which would bring in a wide range of jobs and create employment and ongoing business.
Organic Soy milk, Cashew milk, etc can be used to make Yoghurt, and as milk in tea etc.
Over to the small/medium size businesses folk, PCs, food technologists, etc. !
June 17th, 2017 at 1:36 pm
How Tamil Nadu deals with cow slaughter :
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2020/stories/20031010001205000.htm
June 17th, 2017 at 7:51 pm
So samurai as you say; the limbs of a man was cut off for Sacrificing a cow to god. Not for eating beef. Sinhalese have been hunters as well as farmers. Now under Indian Empire and Indian imperialism cow has become sacred. It is part of the Hinduthwa brain washing of Sinhalese.
Our ancestors, the Vedhdhaas are hunters, they still are.
Certain meats were part of the Sinhala Wattoru Wedhakama. For example Tiger meat and Monkey meat for asthma. Tiger meat for sexual dysfunction of men. Try them and I guarantee you.
If any Historical and Buddhists are to believe Tissa was on a hunting trip at Mihintalawa.
Robert Knox tells you about our eating habits and according to him we ate meat and fish. He lived here for years not like the stories of people passing by.
I am not advocating meat eating. Eating meat is not banned in Buddhism, Christianity or Islam.
It is Hinduthwawhich is the Imperialist religion of the Indian colony we live in now.
Even Indians in the South are rising against the North Indian Gau Rakshas (Cow Protectionist).
Be aware of Hinduthwa brain washing!
June 17th, 2017 at 9:25 pm
@Samurai
The most convincing evidence comes from the actual consumption of meat including beef in modern Sri Lanka. Largest beef consumers (by value and volume) are Sinhala Buddhists, not Muslims. It is extremely unlikely this practice developed with the arrival of Europeans as our historical evidence clearly shows otherwise. Venerable Welivita Sri Saranankara and Anagarika Dharmapala carried out campaigns against beef consumption in 18th and 20th centuries for the obvious reason people were actually eating it. However, even they abandoned these movements as people didn’t pay much heed. I don’t say it is a good thing but that’s what prevailed. This is not the case in India.
In 1950s new cattle protection laws were introduced to stop a practice not even found in Europe. This concerns trading or transporting parts of cattle, notably cows’ hind legs. Obviously this is an age old practice in the island not found in Europeans. Cows’ hind legs were consumed as a delicacy by people. Obviously it is considered disgusting (and illegal since 1950s), it is a practice that happened and actually still happens. Until it was banned, it was very much legal and there is no evidence to say it was illegal in the past or the society did anything to stop it.
Sinhala people were meat eaters from prehistoric times. They were never vegetarian in known history. It is true some kings did impose bans on meat but these edifices died with those individual kings. Some other kings (notably King Vijayabahu IV) ordered meat to be essential in royal offerings to monks.
Indisputable evidence of beef eating comes from Gedige in Anuradhapura (4 century BC to 2 century AD). It also assumes a very high social status and a Buddhist centre. There is no evidence of imposing any ban on killing cows specifically in anyway in Sri Lanka.
The Medirigiriya inscription (circa 10 century BC) clearly states goat, fowl and peafowl meat were consumed even in hospitals where traditionally ancient local medication excluded meat consumption. Even Buddhist monks consumed meat (Saddharmarathnakaraya) with a number of different preparations.
Henry Parker upon excavations at Tissamaharama noted that people consumed mainly upon deer, cattle, elk, spotted deer, buffaloes, wild pig and large monkey. This was a scientific investigation studying utensils and bone-break patters.
Another German investigation team found after extracting matter from ancient pottery the ingredients in people’s food bowls and included chicken, eggs, turtle eggs, peacock meat, pork, beef, rabbit, venison, pigeon and snipe bird. Sahassavaththuppakaranya clearly states just after the time of King Devanampiyatissa during the rule of King Kavantissa, his ace warrior Nandimithra regularly consuming venison. This is less than 100 years after the introduction of Buddhism. This is to the testament that Buddhism never imposed restrictions on people’s food choices. An ancient inscription ascribed to the period of King Bhatiya II (2 century AD), the kin’s court donates it’s share of meat of peafowls, bulls, deer and antelope to a Buddhist monastery. Of course fish was heavily consumed.
Robert Knox writes that Sinhalese ate all forms of meat (including monkey) though vegetarianism was looked at in a good light.
It is interesting that ancient Samurais consumed beef (called Omi Beef).
This new movement to award a special place for the cow and turning Sri Lanka secular are done not in anyway with noble intentions. It is yet another disgusting and invasive Indian attempt. The good news is, it fails as the other camp is far more powerful.
June 17th, 2017 at 9:35 pm
I had a similar exchange of views with someone named Janaka Perera sometime back. It is far better if “Samurai” uses his/her real identity.
The bottomline is the cow does not unite Sri Lanka and India in anyway as the creature is treated differently in the two countries in contemporary times, in history (historical evidence as seen above works both ways) and in future. Therefore the claim by Maharaj, Athuraliye Rathana and Mano Ganesan is wrong.
Any attempt to restrict cow meat consumption, cow slaughter and other matters relating to the cow must follow democratic means. All forms of imposition must be defeated. Free food choice is what makes Sri Lanka unique in the South Asian region. This uniquely Sri Lankan freedom must be retained.
June 17th, 2017 at 11:12 pm
Thanks Dilrook. This clearly shows who funds the JHU. The Indian Maharaj and Colonists.
June 17th, 2017 at 11:31 pm
We have MUCH MORE IMPORTANT things to be concerned about than the politics of meat consumption in Sri Lanka.
Why are we even debating this NOB-ISSUE at GREAT LENGTH??
June 18th, 2017 at 1:32 am
All the critical comments on what I wrote on this subject are utterly irrelevant to the crux of my argument.
Whether the cow unites Buddhists and Hindus or whether the Veddahs and others are still hunting or whether King Tissa was on hunting trip (BEFORE Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka) or whether some modern Sinhala ‘Buddhists’ are beef addicts or whether Indian imperialism is attempting to use cow ban as a Trojan horse to dominate SL or what the JHU is doing is NOT the point I am trying to make.
I quoted irrefutable sources to prove that in pre-colonial SL the majority of the population including the rulers did not endorse beef consumption, although a few may have done so the sly.
Anagarika Dharmapala was born during the British colonial era by which time the population had become addicted to beef and other kinds of flesh as never before. I have read Robert Knox’s book on SL. Nowhere does it say Sinhalas were ADDICTED to flesh consumption. There’s NO mention of cattle slaughter anywhere. Instead as I stated earlier Europeans at the time were derogatorily referred to as ‘gerimas kanno’ (beef eating slaves)
In general there was no meat industry as such in the country, although some went hunting.
Among the several reasons for Hindus to worship the cow is that it is associated with god Krishna one the avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu. True Buddhists do not worship the cow or any other animal but UPHOLD the right of all creatures to live. Concerning cattle Sinhala Buddhists have had a special affinity for them since ancient times our people have relied on them for agricultural purposes; for milk and dung and for sustenance of rural life in general. Even today cows are a major source of livelihood for many villagers both in the South and the North.
The Buddha neither called for a ban on flesh consumption nor did he encourage it. Instead he helped deep-thinking sensitive people understand that addiction to flesh consumption only contributed to INCREASED animal slaughter.
There is NO consensus of opinion in the medical fraternity that meat eating is essential for human health. Neither the WHO states so. There are sports personalities and others who are vegetarians or semi-vegetarians and not all of them are Buddhists or Jains ore Hindus.
Anyway meat eating or not is personal choice.
This whole debate boils down to two opposite views.
ONE: Animals and other creatures on the planet are created for solely for our benefit – for our consumption as taught by the Abrahamic religions.
TWO: All sentient beings on this planet have a right to live and we need to avoid killing them as far as possible as taught by Jainism and Buddhism.
To achieve No.2 HUMANE education should be given to children from kindergarten, because this is NOT merely a Buddhist or any other religious issue.
There’s nothing more to argue. Each of us knows where we stand on this matter.
Please also click on the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1wAsjuqEho
June 18th, 2017 at 3:18 am
“Cow unites Buddhists and Hindus for its protection”
The heading should have been” Cow Rules Ceylon (Sri Lanka)”.
These three people shows what we are and what our future is.
Rathana is the Sinhala Buddhist representing the natives of the Colony.
Ganeshan represent the Indian Colonist.
Maharajthe Indian Empire.
What other evidence you want to show that the island nation is an Indian colony.
June 18th, 2017 at 3:27 am
https://v8ranch.com/content/uploads/2014/09/Brahman-Beef-Cuts.jpg
June 18th, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Whether the cow unites Buddhists and Hindus or whether the Veddahs and others are still hunting or whether King Tissa was on hunting trip (BEFORE Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka) or whether some modern Sinhala ‘Buddhists’ are beef addicts or whether Indian imperialism is attempting to use cow ban as a Trojan horse to dominate SL or what the JHU is doing or what Ganeshan saying is NOT relevant to the crux of my argument.
I quoted irrefutable sources to prove that in pre-colonial SL the majority of the population including the rulers did not endorse beef consumption, although a few may have done so the sly.
Anagarika Dharmapala was born during the British colonial era by which time the population had become addicted to beef and other kinds of flesh as never before. I have read Robert Knox’s book on SL. Nowhere does it say Sinhalas were ADDICTED to flesh consumption. There’s NO mention of cattle slaughter anywhere. Instead as I stated earlier Europeans at the time were derogatorily referred to as ‘gerimas kanno’ (beef eating slaves)
In general there was no meat industry as such in the country, although some went hunting.
The Buddha neither called for a ban on flesh consumption nor did he encourage it. Instead he helped deep-thinking sensitive people understand that addiction to flesh consumption only contributed to INCREASED animal slaughter.
There is NO consensus of opinion in the medical fraternity that meat eating is essential for human health. Neither the WHO states so. There are sports personalities, physicians and others who are vegetarians or semi-vegetarians and not all of them are Buddhists or Jains ore Hindus.
Anyway meat eating or not is personal choice.
This whole debate boils down to two opposite views
ONE: Animals and other creatures on the planet are created for solely for our benefit – for our consumption as taught by the Abrahamic religions.
Those who hold this view will raise all sorts of arguments (religious or non-religious) to justify animal slaughter and the need for meat consumption because they do not consider animals or other such creatures as living beings feelings just like us but simply commodities which can be treated in any way they like. This is also partly based on the absurd religious argument that it is okay to kill animals because they have no soul!
TWO: All sentient beings on this planet have a right to live and we need to avoid killing them as far as possible.
Those with this understanding whether they are Buddhists or non-Buddhists have the sensitivity and wisdom to comprehend why animal slaughter should be minimized. These people feel in their minds the intense pain of animals being slaughtered.
The others however will realize this only if and when they themselves undergo the identical experience. Until then they will continue to scoff at those who oppose the meat industry. This means we are still basically savages despite all our material advancement. If killing animals for meat is okay than killing humans for the same purpose should be okay too, except that the law does not allow it because laws are framed by humans – not by animals which have no voice. But it does not mean that they are willing to give their flesh and blood for our consumption.
To achieve N0.2 HUMANE education should be given to children from kindergarten, because this goes beyond Buddhist or any other religious issue. They should be taught that crime means not only murder (killing humans) but also killing animals for meat. One of the core teachings of Buddhism is compassion. And if a Buddhist cannot be compassionate to both man and beast he cannot be considered a true Buddhist. There are also non-Buddhists who are compassionate towards all living beings. This is the main reason why there are vegetarian and vegan societies in the West.
Now that I have made my point clearly we should know where each of stand on this issue. Each is free to follow the path of his/her choice. No need for further debate.
Please also click on the following links since they explain the issue far better than I have done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1wAsjuqEho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f—YzsNzEAg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA3F4_KRL5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTgM7lU0zZc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApeIUzKLkuo
.
June 20th, 2017 at 12:31 am
This bull took revenge on human scum who revel in blood sports
https://sg.yahoo.com/news/apos-hurry-apos-m-dying-211558227.html